XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy   
   From: nobody@haph.org   
      
   Brock McNuggets    
   news:696c2034$1$20$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Sat, 17 Jan 2026 23:50:12   
   GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:   
      
   > On Jan 17, 2026 at 3:47:39 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote   
   > :   
   >   
   >> Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=    
   >> news:10kfimn$2c5f0$3@dont-email.me Sat, 17 Jan 2026 08:53:43 GMT in   
   >> comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On Sat, 17 Jan 2026 08:31:32 -0000 (UTC), Gremlin wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> I also don't mess the centralized registry concept that MS foisted   
   >>>> upon us.   
   >>>   
   >>> Who is this “us”?   
   >>   
   >> The typical Windows user.   
   >   
   > I am surprised to see you refer to yourself as a "typical Windows user".   
      
   I wasn't. I'm inclined to partially agree with CrudeSausage I think it is   
   who said that you intentionally misinterpret what's written for the   
   purposes of trolling. I still think some of it is related to the fact that   
   you have a serious learning disability in the form of lacking reading   
   comprehension. An important life skill, imo. I concede that we could both   
   be right concerning your tendency of doing what you've done here. I was   
   writing from a general viewpoint, Snit. It's hard to miss that, but,   
   somehow, you still manage to do so. The only question is whether or not   
   it's intentional on your part.   
      
   >>  MS was actively discouraging the use of .INI files   
   >> from Windows 95. They wanted you using the centralized registry   
   >> instead.   
   >   
   > Yes... what a pain.   
      
   It could be if you weren't very familiar with it. Knowing some aspects of   
   the registry was a requirement if you wanted to null the login pw though.   
   That is, if you didn't want to use a 3rd party program to do it for you   
   for whatever reason. A lot of people made use of NT Passkill. Not that I   
   recall you ever developing software yourself that made use of the registry   
   related API calls or went with your own version of an .INI file. Perhaps   
   you have written software from scratch (not to be confused with   
   interpreted scripts) and I'm just not aware of it. You've never given me   
   the impression that you know much/anything about writing code though.   
      
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>> I appreciate human readable text file configurations.   
   >>>   
   >>> Funnily enough, Windows had that, in the form of .INI files that were   
   >>> quite popular among Windows/DOS apps in the days before Windows 95 and   
   >>> Windows NT.   
   >>   
   >> I'm well aware. The windows 9x series was a glorified DOS shell though.   
   >> The NT family wasn't.   
   >   
   > Not quote... the 9x series could run 32 bit code, and that was not just   
   > as a shell. It did use DOS and was not a seepage from it as the NT code.   
      
   Yes, quite. It didn't just use DOS, DOS was still under the hood; it was a   
   glorified shell with win32 API extensions which were available as long as   
   you were using the shell in protected mode which you would have been while   
   running the GUI. Default explorer, but you could opt to use a 3rd party   
   one same as you could with Windows 3.x series.   
      
   NT oth, didn't rely on DOS in any way shape or form. What DOS like support   
   that was offered was entirely emulated.   
      
      
      
   --   
   Liar, lawyer; mirror show me, what's the difference?   
   Kangaroo done hung the guilty with the innocent   
   Liar, lawyer; mirror for ya', what's the difference?   
   Kangaroo be stoned. He's guilty as the government   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)